Bill Aims to Delay Bringing Fuels Under CA Cap-and-Trade System

Drivers who make long commutes in old gas guzzlers might benefit from A.B. 69–but not much. Photo: Moira Curry

In a last-minute maneuver before the California Legislature’s summer recess, Assemblymember Henry Perea (D-Fresno) amended a bill to delay the application of California’s cap-and-trade system to fuels until 2018.

California’s cap-and-trade system is intended to encourage businesses to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) by placing a cap on the total GHG they may produce, and then allowing them to buy or sell emission credits, depending on their ability to meet the cap. It is being phased in over time, and until now has only been applied to manufacturing enterprises. The cap is scheduled to apply to the production and transport of transportation fuels starting in January 2015. Perea’s bill would delay that for three years.

Perea recently joined fifteen other assemblymembers in signing a letter to the California Air Resources Board asking CEO Mary Nichols to redesign the cap-and-trade system to spare drivers the consequences of “an immediate jump in gas prices at the pump,” which the letter claimed would come on January 2015.

Costs associated with the cap-and-trade will most likely be passed on to consumers, but the timing and amounts of those increases are not certain. Estimates of the program’s effect on the price of gas vary from 10 to 20 cents per gallon. That’s far less than spikes in gas prices seen a few years ago, and about the same amount by which the price of gas fluctuated throughout California in the last year, according to the AAA. In other words, this “jump in price” wouldn’t be beyond what California drivers have already dealt with.

Gas prices throughout the country have fluctuated as much as forty cents over the past year. Source: AAA.

Of course, the whole point of cap-and-trade is to provide a “market mechanism” to encourage people to cut GHG emissions. Making people pay for their contribution to climate change will encourage them to find ways to reduce their emissions. If it doesn’t hurt, it won’t work.

And revenues raised from cap and trade, estimated to be at least $2 billion annually, will be used to improve transit options and build housing near transit, providing better alternatives to driving.

Perea’s concern, says his staff, is for low-income workers who live in areas with little transit and few alternatives to driving long distances to work. He hopes that by delaying the program for several years, it will give everyone time to adjust to the coming increase in prices.

Low-income workers do suffer disproportionately from car dependency. A recent report from the New American Foundation [PDF] detailed the backward incentives of an economy that puts a premium on fuel-efficient vehicles, leaving only older, gas-guzzling, polluting vehicles within reach of those who are barely scraping by. People who don’t make much money often can’t take advantage of incentives to buy electric vehicles, and many have to travel long distances to find low-paying jobs in areas with limited transit options. Thus they spend a higher percentage of their income on driving, and their long commutes in old cars contribute to poor air quality in their regions, adding to already high health costs.

But how much will a delay in cap-and-trade for fuels actually benefit low-income residents? Ryan Wiggins of TransForm pointed out that for the average Californian, who uses 40 gallons of gas per month for transportation, including indirect reliance on fuels used for goods and services, a 20-cent increase comes to about $8 per month — chump change in the realm of gas costs and the price fluctuations that happen anyway.

Meanwhile, other entities–like oil companies–stand to benefit far more from Perea’s bill than the average Californian at any income level.

How would a delay help? What would help is a gradual phasing in, but I”m not sure how that would work for cap-and-trade rather than a carbon tax.

allisondan

If Assemblyman Perea and the other co-sponsors had been truly concerned about the effects on low income and rural people, they could have proposed solutions that addressed that particular issue. That they simply want to delay for three years cap and trade on transportation suggests that they are dancing to the tune of the fossil fuel industry. We knew it was coming, and had plenty of time to adjust. I’m not saying the state should not address the concerns of low income and rural residents, but climate change generally hurts these people more than others. Are we saving them a few dollars so that they can pay far more in the long run for the impacts on their lives of inevitable climate change?

Ryanwiggins

Kenny, this process has been a phasing in. Fuels are the last sector to come under the cap. They have been giving essentially three extra years to prepare themselves and have been able to buy permits in the lead-up to coming under the cap so they could essentially save up permits and spread out their expenditures over a longer time frame.

bobster855

What BS! I hope this goes nowhere or that Governor Brown vetoes it if it passes. Our gasoline prices are TOO LOW in this country! If you don’t think so, go to Japan, Australia, Germany, Britain, etc.

Georgiadawn

If this doesn’t pass you will kill California. Prices in everything you buy that is transported via truck will increase. This further encourages businesses to leave and take jobs with them. California is gutting its middle class.

Joe Linton

“kill California” – who knew that a 10-cent rise in gas prices was so powerful!?!

Word On The Street

“With 6 to 7 million cars registered in LA County, it's really laughable to hear the supposedly most progressive thinkers around on the topic go for reducing the number of autos by a mere 100,000 by 2020! Why not 3.5 million? Cut the damn things in half.”